(NaturalNews) While UK citizens were revolting en masse against bureaucratic rule in Europe, another cabal of prostituted lawmakers were busy plotting against American food consumers. According to this announcement from the United States Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, committee leaders have reached a “bipartisan agriculture biotechnology compromise solution.”

What exactly is this so-called “compromise?”

The complete banning of all GMO labeling state laws across America.

And that’s just for starters. After that, this new “compromise” decrees that no foods shall be GMO labeled for two years while the USDA ponders the best way to deceive consumers and hide Monsanto’s GMOs for another few years. The suggested law also gives the USDA the right to decree that any foods with less than 50% bioengineered content could be considered non-GMO, by the way.

White House Caught Blackmailing EU to Force Them to Import GMO and Hormone-Laden Products

Washington, D.C. – In a stunning revelation, secret documents reveal the U.S. pressuring the EU to approve the controversial Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) trade pact through coercion and threats.

The 240 pages of leaked text from the secretive trade pact reveal the Obama administration threatening to block European automobile imports into the U.S. if the EU continues to refuse U.S. genetically modified products and hormone-treated produce.

The White House made clear the intention to block European car exports into the US to force the roughly 500 million strong EU to buy more environmentally risky US farm produce, according to the German publication Süddeutsche Zeitung, along with two German public television channels.

In an attempt to undermine the extremely secretive negotiations surrounding the trade deal between the U.S. and EU, Greenpeace released the texts, which were then made public by the German publication Süddeutsche Zeitung. The German DPA news agency confirmed the authenticity of the documents.

The consensus on the safety of GM food is perfectly clear: there is no consensus

Since when is the safety of genetically modified food considered “settled science” on a par with the reality of evolution? That was the question that jumped to mind when I saw the cover of the March 2015 National Geographicand the lead article, “Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?”

The cover title: “The War on Science.” The image: a movie set of a fake moon landing. Superimposed: a list of irrational battles being waged by “science doubters” against an implied scientific consensus:

“Climate change does not exist.”

“Evolution never happened.”

“The moon landing was faked.”

“Vaccinations can lead to autism.”

“Genetically modified food is evil.” WHAT?

Genetically modified food is evil? First of all, what business does “evil” have in an article about scientific consensus? Sure, some people think GMOs are evil. But isn’t the controversy about whether genetically modified food is safe?

More important, what was such an item doing on a list of issues on which the vast majority of scientists would indeed have consensus? How in the world does author Joel Achenbach define “scientific consensus?” How about 95 percent of the peer-reviewed literature, as in the case of climate change? Near 100 percent, as in the case of the lack of any link between autism and vaccines, or on evolution, or the reality of the moon landing?

There is no such consensus on the safety of GM food. A peer-reviewed study of the research, from peer-reviewed journals, found that about half of the animal-feeding studies conducted in recent years found cause for concern. The other half didn’t, and as the researchers noted, “most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants.”

In other words, those studies are tainted by the same conflict of interest that the article itself denounced in the case of anti-climate-change research commissioned by oil companies. The only consensus that GM food is safe is among industry-funded researchers.

So why would the respected National Geographic make such a scientific error? And why would respected Washington Post science writer Joel Achenbach include GM safety on his list of “settled” science?

Product placement for GMOs

Call it product placement. You know, the nearly subliminal advertising technique in which Coca Cola pays a movie producer to have the characters all drink Coke. Biotechnology companies and their powerful advocates, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, are succeeding in a well-planned campaign to get GM safety declared “settled science.”

The article itself hardly touches the GM controversy or the science. It focuses on the interesting and important question of how people, including scientists, interpret scientific evidence in a way tainted by “confirmation bias,” the tendency to more readily believe evidence that confirms one’s existing beliefs. Achenbach could have added science writers to the list. And magazine editors.

Achenbach focuses on climate change and evolution and vaccines, mainly. GMOs? In what amounts to a throw-away paragraph, after he’s made justifiable fun of anti-fluoride scare-mongering, he writes:

“We’re asked to accept, for example, that it’s safe to eat food containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) because, the experts point out, there’s no evidence that it isn’t and no reason to believe that altering genes precisely in a lab is more dangerous than altering them wholesale through traditional breeding. But to some people the very idea of transferring genes between species conjures up mad scientists running amok—and so, two centuries after Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein, they talk about Frankenfood.”

What? “The experts point out?” Some do, some don’t. “There’s no evidence that it isn’t” safe to eat GMOs? What kind of science is that? Many experts would disagree, and they would certainly object to a safety standard for a new technology that is content with the epidemiologically shabby construct that if there’s no evidence something isn’t safe, it must be safe.